my problem is, I need to pursue the 'man behind the curtain' on things in order for me to claim I am studying something. I don't need to always find THE answer, but I have to pursue it in order to be honest with myself and my path.

I accept and partially understand the conceptual construct of Chi/Ki as it relates to ways of visualization, in order to assist the learner of a physically dynamic and tactile Art. I've worked with a bit of extra focus on 'short power'/fajing this year and have made some progress with measurable result. It isn't easy trying to translate IMA concepts into a 'language' that better suits me...but thats basically what I'm doing - I'm extracting out what I perceive as the baggage which often comes packaged within language associated with Chi.

My line of questioning on topics like this, I realize is frustrating to beleivers - but it being a public forum, they have to find a way to deal with it. just as non-beleivers have to learn to deal with reading nonsense and either ignoring it or addressing it rationally.

don't want the topic to become religious in nature, but wanted to mention I read various mythology which others hold as faith. I've read them from time to time and have read some good ones cover to cover. The metaphors are sometimes clever and poetic....to read it literally is to miss some great practical wisdom. other parts of it I read as just plain whack or irrelavent to my time and space. I have the freedom to do that since I'm not pre-setting the boundry with pre-conditioned faith mechanisms. all in text is fallible (including this post, in fact ).

Like Chi, the fact what little I manage to absorb with different eyes than a believer, does not mean my distilled meaning of particular 'verse' doesn't resonate at some level with people like me: atheists.

A 'chi atheist' does not necessarily mean 'anti-chi'...it just means (can only speak for myself), that belief for belief's sake even in the face of conflicting evidence (or no evidence) does me no good - so it's filtered, not necessarily rejected. but aspects may be rejected based on the level of absurdity or strength of conflicting evidence. ('evidence' be it science, intuition or experience)

The grey areas of learning in which at multiple points along the way, we often have to choose to either be our own teacher, or follow.

it's not all that bad - you make it sound like that fairly new movie 'Perfume'.

[add]in case you didn't see the movie and missed the reference: the guy was trying to literally capture the living scent of Women...by killing them and extracting it. problem was, he realized, that by killing them the scent he was after rather changed to something he wasn't expecting.

Which part? According to science everything absorbs and emits radio magnetic radiation so that would also apply to the plastic leaf.

Quote:

nope, doesn't need a living body.

.

I will come back to that one

Quote:In addition to living material, inanimate objects such as coins will also produce images on the film in a Kirlian photograph setup.

I will come back to that one

Quote: therefore, using your logic, I could also say that the Kirlian effect does not disprove that a twinkie is 'a springy bundle of electro and mechanical energy'. since the results are the same with living vs. inanimate. I could also say the Kirlian effect doesn't disprove bigfoot or the lost city of Atlantis.

see the point? This type of photographic effect doesn't support any argument that we are walking around emitting energy. which is what wristwister stated:

Yes it does. The human body does emit energy

Quote:

The body is a walking bundle of electro-mechanical energy, as evidenced by kirilin photography, so "blending ki" (which is the basis of Aikido) could involve any number of people, correct? Then why would me lending her my "hand position" create that dynamic? The only answer is "ki"... because there wasn't anything else in play there.

Which showed his misunderstanding (as most chiropractors beleiving in this photo effect do), that in fact, inanimate object also produce similar effect. however, if he's willing to say his hand produces as much ki energy as a twinkie, then Kirlian photography could not disprove that claim either.

Did you see the average age of the people reading here? SOMEBODY has to point them in the alternative direction of critical thinking in this forum section.

Cant answer that one yet. There are things that cant be explained such as why do we sense things? Why does an athelete work better if they use mental imagery? .Why do people sense things?

why do young boys throw rocks at each other? Is this a genetic memory back to our ancestors? Or are they just badwhat evers.Things that cant be explained.

Yes, you are correct to argue. With out it people can become complacent or just dont give a what ever. Makes people think

yes, static electricity...or in the mechanical sense, stored energy is also potential kinetic energy. and why stop there? we emit thermal energy also. Also, the nervous system is itself a bio-electrical internet communication system - so that must emit some type of energy field...even if it's less than a quartz watch, it would make your point.

you guys are missing the Kirlian experiment. since there is no difference in effect between an inanimate object and a living thing - then you can't use the photography as evidence of a 'life force' (such as 'Ki'). To do so violates scientific method and becomes psudoscience (selecting what data you want, eliminating other cases, for a desired outcome: which in this case is, 'evidence of ki').

no matter how you twist and turn or introduce concepts, there is one thing true from this: Kirlian photography is NOT evidence of 'Ki', it's not evidence of a 'life force', and it isn't even evidence that the human body emits/stores energy.

There ARE ways of detecting the various infintecimal bio-electrical emmisions of a human body...but Kirlian photography ain't it, Mr Googlestein and Master Dopamine.